Zero hours and casual contracts
In Harpur Trust v Brazel, the Supreme Court held that holiday pay for part-year workers should not be calculated on a pro rata basis, but by applying the approach set out in s.224 of the Employment Rights Act.
In The Harpur Trust v Brazel, the Court of Appeal held that holiday pay for "part-year workers" should not be calculated on a pro rata basis, but by applying the approach set out in s.224 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and calculating average weekly remuneration over the previous 12 weeks.
In Roddis v Sheffield Hallam University, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a lecturer employed under a zero hours contract was employed under the same type of contract as a permanent full-time lecturer for the purposes of his claim of less favourable treatment under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1551).
The European Court of Justice has confirmed that the holiday pay of a worker on a zero hours contract placed on short-time working can be calculated on a pro rata basis.
In Vernon v Event Management Catering Ltd EAT/0161/07 the EAT held that a casual worker who, with the exception of a single two-week break to take a holiday, worked every week for more than three years was an employee and had sufficient continuity of service to claim unfair dismissal. He could demonstrate the existence of a contract of employment in each week during the relevant period and the period of holiday did not break his continuity of employment.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to zero hours and casual contracts.